The Flaws Of Fracking Environmental Sciences Essay

The Flaws Of Fracking environmental Sciences EssayMost plurality who drive cars or heat their houses would concur that finding a cheaper, more accessible fill-in for crude would be a positive advancement. With benefits such as energy independence from distant oil companies and economic stimulus, natural plash boring seems the straightforward solution. However, substituting oil cut with natural gas bore is non as positive of an alternative as it may seem.Commonly hunchn as fracking, the run of oil production for natural gas is f auraly uncomplicated, yet it poses nearly serious risks. The process starts with geologists who identify types of rock that are roughly likely to bind natural gases within them. These gases began forming millions of stratums ago when layers of plant and animal matter decayed, and then became detain by sand and silt that later turned to rock. infra the rock, heat and drag acted together to turn this organic matter to coal, oil, and natural g as (Natural Gas Basics). However, unlike coal and oil which remain structurally trapped down the stairs the rock, most of the tiny bubbles of natural gas mainly composed of methane with butane and propane byproducts are absorbed into the micro-porous matrix of coal. This type of gas is called coalbed methane (Environmental Protection Agency). In do to access this energy-convertible methane, boring companies read turned to a process called hydraulic fracturing. Its name basically explains the process hydraulic convey operated by thepressure created by forcing weewee, oil, or another liquid through a comparatively narrow pipe or orifice, and fracturing is defined as to break or crack (Dictionary.com). Basically, a small crack in underground rock or coal is turned into a large crack using a urine-based fluid pump into the ground at a high pressure, so that the gas contained within the rock lav more easily escape. The first step in the process is to drill a production fountainh ead deep into the earth until it meets the coal seam that contains the gas. The next step is to make a connection between this well and the coal seam so that once the gas is re lease it has a structured means of transportation to the out-of-doors. This connection is made by creating or enlarging a intermit in the seam by pumping a thick fluid into the ground at a steadily increasing speed and pressure. Eventually, the rock go out not be able to capacitate the fluid at the rate at which it is entering the seam, and a check will ensue because of the high pressure. The size of the fracture depends on the features of the touch rock, the type of fracturing fluid, the pressure at which it enters the ground, and the depth of the coal seam. However, all contributing factors aside, a hydraulically created fracture will always select the path of least resistance through the coal seam and surrounding formations (Environmental Protection Agency). So in order to keep the fracture from be ingness consumed once again by the surrounding rock once the pumping of fluid is discontinued, a proppant usually sand is in addition pumped into the ground to prop the fracture open. Once the fall of injected substances has stopped, the open fracture filled with proppant becomes a discontinuity in the continuous pressure of the surrounding rock. When the gas contained within the rock is no longer being held under strict pressure it jakes escape, and the fracture functions as an avenue for deabsorbed gas to flow back up the production well (Environmental Protection Agency).The risk menti unrivaledd in the opening paragraph does not manifest itself in the fracturing process itself, nor in the mere presence of fractures. The danger of this practice is based upon the consistency of the fracturing fluids. However, the recipes for these fracking cocktails are rough to come by, and thus measuring their true negative touch is difficult. boring companies strive to keep the chemica l make-up of their fluids a secret so as not to doze off their competitive edge. In a comment to ProPublica writer Abrahm Lustgarten, Diana Gabriel, a spokesperson for natural gas drilling pioneer Halliburton Energy work Inc., adduced, Halliburtons proprietary fluids are the military issue of years of extensive research We have gone to great lengths to ensure that we are able to harbor the fruits of the companys research. We could lose our competitive advantage (Abrahm Lustgarten). In an effort to keep their businesses viable and lucrative, companies have made an effort to publicly assure mickle that drilling fluids are loosely made up of non-toxic, even edible substances, and that when chemicals are used, they are just a tiny fraction of the overall mix a mix that can reach up to over a million gallons of liquid (Lustgarten). However, that small fraction as tiny as less than one percent of the nitty-gritty can actually end up as over 10,000 gallons of unknown chemicals be ing dumped into the ground. part many of these chemicals used remain unidentified, The Bureau of body politic guidance believes they can identify ab issue 300 different compounds being used in fracking fluids, and of these suspect 300, 65 are considered hazardous by the federal government. The Environmental Protection Agency EPA has established several of these known chemicals as lubricants and biocides that with repeated exposure can be linked to kidney, liver, heart, blood, and brain damage. Most of the remaining 235 out of the 300 have not been studied so their negative affects cannot be predicted. Also, even if these chemicals sincerely are only used in trace amounts as the drilling companies assert, scientists believe that even low doses of contact with them through contaminated swallow water can have damaging affects (Lustgarten).One instance of water taint happened in July 2008 when a hydrologist took a water sample from a 300-foot water well in Sublette County, Wyoming near w present drilling had been taking place. The sample contained brown, foul-smelling, unctuous water, and when tested it showed benzene a chemical found in gasoline and cigarettes, known to cause aplastic anemia and leukemia at 1,500 times the unspoilt level for kind-hearted ingestion. Another un situatetling encounter with contaminated drinking water showed fluoride which although commonly used for medicinal purposes, can cause bone damage or even be fatal in high doses in drinking surface near drilling sites at nearly three time the maximum limit set by the EPA. Fluoride is listed on Halliburtons hydraulic fracturing patent applications, which those opposed to drilling would say leaves little room for doubt as to how the above mentioned fluoride ended up in drinking water. Spokespeople for drilling companies argue that the advent of high levels of these and other chemicals happened naturally or as a result of another catalyst. Thus off the beaten track(predicate) it h as been a challenge to sample otherwise because of the secrecy surrounding the contents of the fracking fluids not even the EPA knows what is in them. Thus, it is hard for them to measure the relative safety of the use of these solutions in the ground. As a result, movements are being made by those who are concerned about the contamination of their drinking water towards requiring drilling companies to disclose the chemicals in their frac juice (Lustgarten).Natural gas drilling companies are not required to disclose the makeup of their fluids because of an exemption laid out in the 2005 Energy indemnity affect. Signed into law by President George W. Bush on shocking 8, 2005, the act exempts oil and gas producers from certain requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act, which means that the EPA does not need to monitor water affected by drilling for possible health-risk-carrying contaminants (Energy Policy of 2005). This loophole is commonly known as the Halliburton loophole, be cause of the alleged involvement in its passage by spring Halliburton CEO and then Vice President of the United States, Dick Cheney (Energy Policy of 2005). Validating this assertion, Benjamin Grumbles, aformer Bush-Cheney EPA champion Administrator for Water, admitted his knowledge of foul play during an interview with ProPublica. In order for the exemption to be included in the bill, the EPA needed to be able to prove to lawmakers that the hydraulic fracturing process was not dangerous, and therefore liable for an exemption, while also not digging themselves into a hole if their findings were later challenged. That is where Grumbles comes in What came across all the way to the EPA was that the Bush administration did not want us to take a formal position of opposition to the exemption. It wasnt so much a pressure. It was just very clear, here is the situation EPA officials or career staff are not to take a position of opposition or support for the legislationI know the office of the vice president Dick Cheney was involved (Bill Wolfe). Representatives Diana DeGette and Maurice Hinchey seek to repeal this unfair and unfounded exemption by introducing the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals FRAC Act. Commenting on the bill, DeGette said, Our bill hardly closes an unconscionable Bush-Cheney loophole by requiring the oil and gas industry to follow the same rules as everyone else (Sarah Jones). Adding to her comment, another anti-drilling Representative, Jared Polis, said, It is irresponsible to stand by while innocent people are getting sick because of an industry exemption that Dick Cheney snuck in to our nations energy policy (Jones). While industry executives have strongly opposed this comment, one point that reporter Sarah Jones makes is super valid if the gas industry is not doing anything harmful to the water ergo, if they have nothing to hide then why do they need to be exempt from regulations? In Jones opinion, and in the opinions of many others, these drilling companies have come up with an effective yet dangerous method of do millions of dollars thus, the American people are saddled with the potentially disastrous consequences of Cheneys tsunami of massive and reckless special interest deregulation, whose sole motivation still appears to be the enrichment of the former vice presidents personal financial interests (Jones). The FRAC Act is being supported in the Senate by Frank Lautenberg of modernistic Jersey, Chuck Schumer of New York, and Bob Casey of pop. As a result of repealing its exemption, the Act would require public disclosure of fracking chemicals. It would also force drilling companies to adhere to the standards set by the Safe Drinking Water Act by modifying it to include hydraulic fracturing in its definition of underground injection. Lautenberg commented on the act saying, People have a right to know if chemicals are being injected into the ground near their homes and potentially ending up in the water supply. This bill will ensure that the EPA has the tools to assess the risks of fracking and require appropriate protections so that drinking water in New Jersey and other states is safe (Matt Fair).The FRAC Act is not the only major piece of legislation in the works that is pursue regulation of natural gas. Three congressmen in the House of Representatives, led by Rush Holt, echoed Lautenberg and Caseys motions towards cleaning up drilling processes by introducing the BREATHE Bringing Reductions to Energys airborne Toxic Health Effects Act. The act will undo additional exemptions from the Clean Air Act for oil and gas rigs, requiring them to meet air note standards. Although this law will not impact hydraulic fracturing specifically, it will help create a sense of accountability for drilling companies who up to today have had to answer to next to no one. The act will also help clean up the pollution that ensues from the process itself. Noting this lack of monitorin g by authorities, Holt said, Our loyalties shouldnt be with oil and gas companies our loyalties should be with families affected by fracking (Fair). Moving to bypass small preventative measures, Senator Linda Greenstein and two other legislators introduced a bill last year that would outlaw fracking completely in New Jersey if it passed (Fair). Additionally in New Mexico, a survey conducted in Santa Fe notice hundreds of cases of water contamination from unlined pits where fracking fluids and other wastes are stored. As a result, the state has passed a one year moratorium on drilling around the city, until further research can be conducted (Lustgarten). Colorado has been fighting against natural gas drilling with the most gusto of any state, completing a complete rewrite of all drilling regulations in 2007 and moving towards requiring full disclosure of the exact make up of all fracturing fluids. An early compromise between the state and drilling companies was reached in August of 2008 when gas companies agreed to disclose the makeup of fracturing liquids only to health officials and regulators. This compromise was stimulated by news of an accident involving fracking fluid that nearly killed Colorado nurse, Cathy Behr. While treating a hunter who had run in to a fracking fluid spill, she came in contact with the fluid. The hunter was eventually discharged, but shortly afterwards Behr was admitted into the hospital herself with eightfold organ failure and in critical condition. In order to treat her in hopes of saving her life, hospital doctors asked to be informed of the chemicals she had been exposed to, but the gas company declined. The Behr incident shake up public outcry against the drilling industry, which moved companies to make concessions with the state. However, their partial disclosure exact was not as much overture as it was made out to be a clause was included in the deal that would ensure that the disclosure agreement would only apply to che micals stored in containers that could hold 50 gallons or more. So to avoid full disclosure it has been found that drilling companies often store their fracking fluids in smaller containers. This agreement was unluckily the best deal that could be reached, because the three main fracking companies in Colorado threatened to leave the state if disclosure was forced upon them. Their absence would deprive the state of $29 billion in future gas-related tax revenue over the next ten years, so the state settled for a mediocre deal (Lustgarten).These anti-drilling legislative actions have been brought about by the rising awareness of the risks that the effects of drilling pose. Legislators, namely in Pennsylvania, seek to update their regulations so as not to allow their communities to fall victim to the negative effects of fracking (Risky Gas cut Threatens Health, Water Supplies). Such negative effects fall into three main categories that are often interrelated environmental, human, and animal risks.The most no disconcert environmental risk of natural gas drilling is the pollution of ground water that it has been shown to cause. Fracking fluids leak into the surrounding water tables which then provides for the possibility of the chemicals leeching into drinking wells that are for human and animal use. Fracking is a suspect in polluted drinking water in Arkansas, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming, where residents have reported changes in water quality or quantity following fracturing operations (Risky Gas Drilling Threatens Health, Water Supplies). Although in their 2004 report on hydraulic fracturing the EPA asserted that it posed no threat to drinking water, there have been more than 1,000 documented cases of water contamination near drilling sites in Colorado, New Mexico, Ohio and Pennsylvania alone. More recently, the EPA has discovered that up to one third of injected fracturing fluids may stay in the ground subsequent to drill ing. They have also asserted that these fluids, specifically benzene, are likely to be transported by groundwater (Lustgarten). In September of 2008, tests performed on wells in Sublette County, Wyoming showed contamination in 88 of the 220 wells examined in an area spanning over 28 miles. Upon returning to these same sites at a later date, scientists were unable to even open the water wells because their monitors showed they contained so much flammable gas that they were likely to explode (Lustgarten). Although the State is aware of these risks, New York legislators are looking towards allowing drilling in the Marcellus Shale region of their state, which holds an underground teemingness of natural gas. This region runs underneath a portion of the New York City watershed that provides pure, unfiltered drinking water (Risky Gas Drilling Threatens Health, Water Supplies). Drilling in this area would leave over 9 million New Yorkers at risk of being exposed to and/or ingesting contamin ated water (Risky Gas Drilling Threatens Health, Water Supplies). Another problem regarding contaminated water arises not from underground drilling, but from chemical spills on the surface that allow fluids to seep into the water table from above. Accidental spills and leaky tanks, trucks and waste pits have allowed benzene and other chemicals to leach into streams, springs and water wells (Lustgarten). State records in Colorado have shown that between 2003 and 2008 over 1,500 fracking chemical spills have occurred, with 206 of those spills occurring in 2008. 48 of the 206 have been reported as linked to water contamination (Lustgarten). Beyond just water contamination, natural gas drilling threatens to pollute clean air and destroy natural landscapes. Inevitably, this damage to the environment caused by drilling will rapidly begin to disturb the inhabitants of that environment.As people must have a place to live, they are very much affected by the contamination of their surrounding s. Because of the large-scale nature of drilling operations and the single out landscapes where natural gas reservoirs often are found, rural communities end up being transformed into industrial zones. Even when done in compliance with brisk regulations, natural gas production brings with it toxic waste, diesel fumes, traffic and wall-rattling noise all of which would be incredibly disruptive to people who are accustomed to pure, still landscapes (Risky Gas Drilling Threatens Health, Water Supplies). Besides just noise pollution and traffic which, while they can be annoying, are not life jeopardise the safety of those who live in close proximity to drilling sites can be in jeopardy. Because we are talking about natural gas, there is always the possibility of a fire or gas explosion. While safety procedures are in place to prevent this from happening, it can, and does happen (REPUBLIKID The Pros And Cons Of Natural Gas Drilling In Pennsylvania and Central New York). unless th e mere possibility that an explosion could occur is troubling, as a REBUBLIKID writer noted that fluid storage tanks and other drilling materials have been kept in residential areas, and even near a school (REPUBLIKID The Pros And Cons Of Natural Gas Drilling In Pennsylvania and Central New York). There have been several documented cases of explosions. In one case, investigators deduced that the explosion of a house was caused by methane gas that entered the residential water supply. Fracturing provided a means for the gas to reach this water supply, as it forged underground passageways through which the gas could travel. In a similar case that occurred in December 2007, a house in Bainbridge, Ohio exploded in a fiery ball (Lustgarten). A study of the situation prove that hydraulic fracturing produced pressure that forced methane gas upward from its usual location of thousands of feet below the surface. The gas traveled through a series of cracks until it reached the groundwater a quifer, and eventually the tap water of the Bainbridge neighborhood. Investigators discovered that the neighborhoods tap water contained so much methane that the house ignited (Lustgarten). The most famous case of an explosion occurred at the home of Larry and Laura Amos in western Colorado. Just beyond the Amoses property line, the usual drilling for the day had commenced, when suddenly, less than 1,000 feet from their house, their drinking water well exploded like a Yellowstone geyser, firing its lid into the air and spewing mud and gray fizzing water high into the sky. State inspectors tested the Amos well for methane and found lots of it (Lustgarten). Following the incident, the family was assured that they were in no real danger, as long as they vented their house by keeping doors and windows open to ensure an explosion did not ensue as a result of more gas trapped inside their house. However, they were never warned that the water could possibly be seriously contaminated, even after it returned to its original color. Thus, the family continued to bathe in and drink the water, until three years later when Laura Amos was diagnosed with a rare adrenal tumor (Lustgarten). Concerned for her then three year old daughter, who had been bathed in the possibly polluted water daily as an infant, she began to challenge the state about the mysterious chemicals that might have been in her well. Laura contacted scientist Theo Colborn, whose studies on the affects of low-dose exposure to chemicals are considered the most comprehensive available (Lustgarten). In Colborns Congressional testimony to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, she expressed grave concern at her discovering that fracturing fluids contained the chemical 2-butoxy ethanol BE-2. She produced a long list of bizarre health effects that were possible at relatively low levels of exposure, and explained that BE-2 is odorless, colorless, tasteless, and evaporates at room temperature. If th is chemical were to surface as a gas or get into a drinking water supply, it could cause health problems in domestic and wild animals and humans that could put veterinarians or physicians (The Applicability of Federal Requirements to Protect Public Health). In what could be considered undisputable proof of the contribution of fracking fluids to Laura Amos condition, Colborn also noted that adrenal tumors, which are extremely rare, are known to be caused by exposure to this chemical (The Applicability of Federal Requirements to Protect Public Health). This is just one case, regarding one health issue, caused by one chemical however, fracturing fluids contain hundreds of known and unknown chemicals that have been linked to dozens of other critical health problems. Colborn believes even very low doses of some of the compounds can damage kidney and immune systems and affect reproductive development, which is very disturbing from a health standpoint, as millions of people already have b een, or will be exposed to these chemicals in the future (Lustgarten).A third and final risk posed by natural gas drilling is the negative impact that the influx of drilling machinery and the contact with fracturing fluids has on animals. Drilling companies may need to clear forests and pave roads in order to have access to their drilling sites, which is disruptive to the natural habitat of wild animals. Animals may also flee when they encounter drilling machinery, as they perceive it as a new predatory. The cabal of these two factors may lead to forced migration of animals to another area, which then starts off a chain reaction of wildlife related problems (REPUBLIKID The Pros And Cons Of Natural Gas Drilling In Pennsylvania and Central New York). More than 25 million acres of wildlife habitat in the West have been leased by the Bureau of Land Management, and could potentially be opened to drilling, which would be devastating to the natural ecosystems there (Risky Gas Drilling Thr eatens Health, Water Supplies). Contact with fracturing fluids through contaminated water has proved to be extremely detrimental to animals, both wild and domestic. In one area of Wyoming, as drilling activity increased, mule deer numbers declined by 30 percent from 2000 to 2007 (Risky Gas Drilling Threatens Health, Water Supplies). In Garfield County, Colorado, domestic animals that had produced offspring like clockwork each spring were no longer giving pay to healthy young (Lustgarten). In addition, a bull went sterile, and a herd of beef cows stopped going into heat, as did pigs. In the most liaison case, sheep bred on an organic dairy farm had a rash of inexplicable still births (Lustgarten). All these peculiarities occurred near drilling waste pits, where wastewater that includes fracturing fluids is misted into the air for vaporization (Lustgarten). Many organizations are fighting against this devastation, as well as the other two types addressed above. The Natural Resource Defense Council especially is fighting to protect communities across the country from the pollution caused by natural gas production. By tightening loopholes in our bedrock environmental laws, banning drilling on delicate lands and requiring the most stringent regulatory requirements wherever production does take place, we can help protect critical water supplies and other precious resources and keep our communities safe and healthy (Risky Gas Drilling Threatens Health, Water Supplies).After addressing all these negative factors and reasons not to drill, a reader could be left wondering why companies do it at all. Below are some of the pros to the fracturing process that drilling companies stand behind.First is accessibility. The technological advances in the drilling process make extracting gas from previously inaccessible sites possible (Risky Gas Drilling Threatens Health, Water Supplies). This new ability to tap into a previously nonexistent resource has been exciting for man y, and as inspired a gold rush affect for those in the gas and oil business. The fracturing method allows gas to be collected from thousands of feet beneath the earth, a feat that, as of yet, can only be accomplished by hydraulic fracturing (Risky Gas Drilling Threatens Health, Water Supplies).Secondly, natural gas drilling provides energy independence from foreign oil companies. More domestic drilling means less dependence on oil from terror sponsoring countries Like Saudi Arabia, and Iran, and socialist dictatorships such as Hugo Chavezs Venezuela (REPUBLIKID The Pros And Cons Of Natural Gas Drilling In Pennsylvania and Central New York). Many would also agree that weaning the United States from dependence on oil would be good for everyones pocketbooks. According to T. Boone Pickens in a comment to ProPublica, natural gas is cleaner, cheaperabundant, and ours. Gas is also more environmentally friendly than oil, as it emits 23 percent less carbon when burned (Lustgarten).Finally, t he collection of natural gas provides economic stimulation. Drilling companies are always hiring, and they provide jobs that have an annual income of $40,000 a year. As many drilling sites are located in rural and often poor areas, that kind of net is welcomed by struggling families. If plans for full-scale drilling in Pennsylvania and New York are carried out, thousands of such jobs could be created. Local employees and workers from out of town will end up spending much of their salary near the drilling site, stimulating the local economy and allowing local businesses to keep their doors open (REPUBLIKID The Pros And Cons Of Natural Gas Drilling In Pennsylvania and Central New York). Land leases and taxes on drilling sites will generate income for the state, and landowners will receive royalties as high as 10 percent for relinquishing their lands to be leased for drilling (REPUBLIKID The Pros And Cons Of Natural Gas Drilling In Pennsylvania and Central New York).When all of these factors are examined and weighed against each other, it is my personal opinion that the risks of drilling far override the benefits the health and safety of human beings should always have priority over money. However, the benefits certainly have merit, and provide a solution to several problems go about the American people today. If a safer drilling process could be developed without using harmful chemicals and with increased safety precautions to prevent explosions, natural gas drilling could possibly be the catalyst towards a better, more stable US economy.